Forest of Dean under threat again !!!

[Elen Sentier]

I'm sorry if this is wrong (please delete if necessary) or the wrong place but if anyone want's to support our campaign to keep the forest we'd be very grateful. This is one of my stamping grounds. We thought we'd stopped the government but no, they're off to sell some of it it again

 

[Ed Edwards]

Grew up around here, such a beautiful part of the UK.

 

[Macaroon]

Forest of Dean District Council have got to be one of the worst local authorities in the land; I've had a lot to do with them over the years and always to my great cost in more ways than one............They do what they like and ride roughshod over all, with no regard for anything other than pushing through their plans come what may. Historically they have always been seen as a "special case" 'cause of the coalmining thing, and boy have they made the most of it!.............they've been getting away with murder for donkeys years and I would like to have seen them in court to answer for their actions on numerous occassions, but they're too slippery; if you go against them they make your life a misery and cost you a serious amount of money..............they've ruined many a campaigner over the years to my certain knowledge

I'm very happy to live the other side of the Wye Valley in sunny Wales, our own problems notwithstanding..............I've signed, atb mac

 

[didicoy]

From the Forestry Commissions point of view it is inevitable. The general public want open access managed forests around the country. It is just not viable. The income from timber production does not cover the cost of management longterm. Selling brownfield sites is a way of generating money to continue with public ownership, management and open access of our forests. Britain is the second largest importer of timber in the world.

 

[Macaroon]

I think most of the "General Public" would be quite content with unmanaged open access...........and the point some would make is that the site in question is no longer brownfield, but has become something other, and I can see some merit in this viewpoint........

Why does everything have to be managed? Do woodlands not look after themselves to a great extent, assuming as you state that there's no point in cultivating timber that's not worth anything?....atb mac

 

[swotty]

E petition signed............

 

[didicoy]

I think most of the "General Public" would be quite content with unmanaged open access...........and the point some would make is that the site in question is no longer brownfield, but has become something other, and I can see some merit in this viewpoint........

Why does everything have to be managed? Do woodlands not look after themselves to a great extent, assuming as you state that there's no point in cultivating timber that's not worth anything?....atb mac

I disagree with your comment about the public being quite content with the unmanaged part. Having spent several years in FC office dealing with complaints from different user groups. Regarding management of our countryside. It is just that, managed. Without this mgt input, scrub, woodland and forest would resort to a climax community. So to answer your question, woodlands do not look after themselves. The FC manage as is, as a result of world war/industry demands on our timber resource. Public access is secondary but more valuable than a standing crop in times of peace. It is said that we, this country could only last a few months if we felled every tree in Britain, subject to timber import restrictions, before we would encounter paper shortages that would impact on everyone. Therefor we manage what we have.

 

[Toddy]

The issues are more complex than that; the reality is that the woodlands are also our 'green lungs', and the more mobile the population becomes, the more use they make of the recreation of simply enjoying those same woodlands. The more they appreciate the entirety of eco systems and their place for all of the flora and fauna of our rather over populated islands.
To sell them off is like selling off the family home for immediate gain but long term poverty and homelessness.

Toddy

 

[Macaroon]

As you say, Toddy, the issues are vastly complex and if I wanted to take my response to didicoy's post above any further it would become very political so I'm not going to go into it in depth: I will however say that there's no good reason for the FC not to manage woodlands in a very basic way as the public access amenity that they are and always should be - if this is not commercially viable, then the money should come from the public purse, and don't forget that whatever money the FC gets is your taxes and mine.

The woods are ours and we should request and require good management to enable their use as an aid to physical and psychological health and well-being!

Profound apologies for those tortuous sentences!.................................atb mac

 

[didicoy]

As you say, Toddy, the issues are vastly complex and if I wanted to take my response to didicoy's post above any further it would become very political so I'm not going to go into it in depth: I will however say that there's no good reason for the FC not to manage woodlands in a very basic way as the public access amenity that they are and always should be - if this is not commercially viable, then the money should come from the public purse, and don't forget that whatever money the FC gets is your taxes and mine.

The woods are ours and we should request and require good management to enable their use as an aid to physical and psychological health and well-being!

Profound apologies for those tortuous sentences!.................................atb mac

The FC have excepted over the last 10 years that one way to manage for public access is in a basic way. By adopting the right to roam on FC land, the responsibility for personal safety underfoot shifted from the FC and the constant need to maintain paths that are all inclusive and often paved with stonechip etc, can now be focused on high priority areas. Any infrastructure, like footpath furniture is inspected and signed off regularly, as some members of the general public wouldn't hesitate to seek damages in the form of compensation. I believe the FC have embraced the green gym concept, opening up cycle routes, advertizing PRW amongst other sport related activities. Some user groups do pay to use the forest, like horse riders. It would be great to have more public money to invest, but like you say. We all have to pay in taxes.

 

[dave53]

bxxxcks to the politics, it is our land and we should have a say in it
I've signed
regards dave

 

[treadlightly]

Why does everything have to be managed? Do woodlands not look after themselves to a great extent,

Yes they do imho. They are managed to serve our needs or to maximise biodiversity which is necessary because we have cut down most of our woodland over the centuries.

 

[didicoy]

Another point to consider. The brown land in question & proposed for sale, is of high development value. The FC are continuously reinvesting in poor quality (cheap) agricultural land to expand tree cover and therefor public amenity access.